See how much can a cheap filter degrade you photo
May 23, 2013 10:02:14 #
Crwiwy wrote:
Surely a CPL will also degrade the image to some extent? It also increases the aperture by a fair amount which could be in the area of the lens that has less definition.
It increases the aperture, what are you talking about. Is this a flight of imagination or a fact that I have never heard of.
May 23, 2013 10:12:28 #
I guess it all boils down to each photographer is going to have to decide on his or her own what is and is not important to them, and what to believe and what not to believe. It is pretty obvious in this simple test that , if you decide you want to keep a filter on your lens buy a good one. I right now am having a hard time justifying buying a $70 to $80 filter to protect a $200 lens. From reading this article there is no other reason to have a UV filter on a digital camera.
http://photographylife.com/lens-filters-explained
http://photographylife.com/lens-filters-explained
May 23, 2013 10:14:01 #
of course having no filter would make for a better photo since there aren't any other barriers between the image and the lens...however i am a believer in using a filter on all my lenses when i venture outdoors..there are too many elements out there that can ruin your lens no less your photo..water ..condensation...sand particles if you are on the beach...salt air..any dust that may float your way..it is easier to remove and clean a filter than to take a chance to scratch your lens..
indoor studio work you can do without a filter in a much safer environment...
indoor studio work you can do without a filter in a much safer environment...
May 23, 2013 10:28:44 #
I followed advice and always used a UV (sky) filter for lens protection until a few years ago. I took it off one day and was amazed at the improvement in my pictures. I don't use any filters now other than a polarizer occasionally.
May 23, 2013 10:56:52 #
WAL wrote:
It increases the aperture, what are you talking about. Is this a flight of imagination or a fact that I have never heard of.
Yes, if you use a CPL you will lose 2-Fstops of light which you have to make up some way ....either aperture OR shutter speed.
May 23, 2013 11:10:06 #
I don't use a filter to protect my lens but I do use filters in my shooting. I use a circular polarizer and neutral density filters in landscape shots. If it is a hazy day I might use a UV filter. I will agree with the statement that you get what you pay for. A $3 filter is not going to do the job that a $90 filter will do.
May 23, 2013 11:10:12 #
Please tell me why this or any other example is proof...and note please that price alone is always the factor...yet we have all seen incredible clarity in stunning photographs that were done through plain clear window glass....that did not cost +$50. per sq. inch???
May 23, 2013 11:14:17 #
As I have said before Canon and Nikon and I believe most modern D-SLR's have built in uv protection so adding a UV or Skylight filter will most of the time work against your getting a good quality picture. I would thing getting a good quality Clear glass protector for the lenses would be the way to go. Hoya, B&W, Helopan, ECT. Make just such a product for those who want lens protection.
May 23, 2013 11:34:05 #
While 35mm gear begs for filters for front group protection. Digitals using lens shades simply do not need UV or skylight filters.
IMHO[/quote]
I have recently gotten back into photography after an absence of many years so all of my knowlege and experience is with film, I am a digital newbie. Why do digitals not need the protection?
IMHO[/quote]
I have recently gotten back into photography after an absence of many years so all of my knowlege and experience is with film, I am a digital newbie. Why do digitals not need the protection?
May 23, 2013 11:46:33 #
I've shattered a sunshade a couple of times on rocks or logs, but also shattered or dinged a protective filter at least twice: all without damage to the lens. I've also thrown away a few scratched filters. Rather spend $50 on a B&W or Nikon filter to protect a $1000+ lens than not.
May 23, 2013 11:49:56 #
In general film has always been disproportionately sensitive to the higher part of the visual spectrum. It was also sensitive to ultraviolet which is not in the visible spectrum. The atmosphere also reflects in the uv range. It is increased at high altitudes. The idea of the was to keep this stray and no image light from having an effect on the film. The type of glass was what kept out the UV rays. The digital sensors do not respond in the same way as film. If you look at old photos, American Civil war era, You'll notice there is little detail in the sky.
I think the idea took when it was seen a protection for the lens. The camera dealers have obviously capitalized on this. It is still a good idea, but the high price of the filters is shameful.
Enjoy the digital world.
I think the idea took when it was seen a protection for the lens. The camera dealers have obviously capitalized on this. It is still a good idea, but the high price of the filters is shameful.
Enjoy the digital world.
May 23, 2013 11:52:31 #
Certainly there's a difference with filter on and off, but I don't think it makes enough of a difference that it really matters, unless maybe you are doing large (above 8x10) prints. Chances are, nobody will examine your prints with a magnifying glass and analyze the sharpness and detail of individual hairs on a cat. And if you're printing on matte paper, those fine details get softened anyway.
May 23, 2013 11:55:38 #
Joe F.N. wrote:
I stand corrected. I still wouldn't use them.
Just because it says Canon on them doesn't mean that Canon made them...A lot of work is subcontracted out. Now if you show me a link showing the filters being made in a Canon factory I may change my mind, but simply linking to a site showing them for sale means nothing....Vivitar made nothing, but their name is all over the place
May 23, 2013 11:57:45 #
My wife and I cannot see any difference at all. I suppose that is the difference between a professional and novice. Either that or the Opthamologist blotched are recent cataract surgery.
May 23, 2013 11:59:31 #
jenny wrote:
Please tell me why this or any other example is proof...and note please that price alone is always the factor...yet we have all seen incredible clarity in stunning photographs that were done through plain clear window glass....that did not cost +$50. per sq. inch???
This example is not "proof" of anything. To be proof it would need to be a very controlled test. This post was to demonstrate that you need to think about what you are doing and how it affects to out come of your photography. There are many people out there to whom a filter is a filter. Why pay $90 when you can get one for $9. And this was a $9 one.
This is an example of why NOT to buy the $9 filter.
Also price should not determine what filter or anything that you buy. See the earlier post by dpullum on page 2 where they actually did a conclusive test of filters. It wasn't the most expensive one that came out on top.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.